Feminism is largely viewed as a liberal movement. The Mainstream Media has done an admirable job of making the Left seem friendly to women and their desires while making the Right appear to be detrimental to women’s rights.

Of course, we conservatives know instinctively that this is far from the case. Proving that, however, takes a little effort. We can certainly point to political celebrities such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman or media stars the likes of Monica Crowley, Laura Ingram or Ann Coulter. On the other hand, giving sporadic examples seems insufficient when we have such a rich history we can examine to show how the Left has co-opted the march towards equal rights for purposes of its own, selfish political agenda.

Click Video to here Margaret Sanger in her own words!

The truth is feminism has gone full circle. The suffragettes fighting for the right to vote at the dawn of the Twentieth Century and through the Depression Era were very different from modern liberal feminists who appeared during the late 1960′s. The former were focused on gaining equality as stakeholders in the American Dream. The latter had a very different agenda. Their primary concern was the re-engineering of society rather than political equality. These post-1960′s rough edged, exceedingly masculine, progressive feminists reflected the utopianism of leftist ideologies. In short, they embodied a tradition of complaining and whining. Fortunately, that version of feminism is quickly being supplanted by a new, conservative “feminine” movement which embraces the Messianic ideal of the traditional Judeo-Christian ethos and a positive, “can do” attitude.

The Feminist movement which came of age during the late 1920′s to early 1940′s was created out of a need to raise awareness and challenge certain social structures, in order to give women an equal say in the directions our nation would evolve. Many of the pioneers of this brand of feminism were raised in working class immigrant communities, neighborhoods populated by political radicals and leftists focused on issues of social justice, equality and an acute awareness of other people’s suffering. As city dwellers and members of ethnic groups on the outskirts of American society, they addressed urban alienation and confronted racism through the application of community activism.

Many women worked in the needle trades and joined unions like International Ladies Garment Worker’s Union (ILGWU), Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA), United Cloth Hat and Cap Makers Union and Fur and Leather Workers Union. They found that by banding together in larger groups and by organizing their efforts cooperatively, they could make changes which would be impossible for them as individuals. This thinking would soon transfer to their desire to become voters alongside the male half of society.

Subjected to unbearable conditions and influenced by radical community leaders, many joined the Socialist Party and later even the Communist Party. They voted for leftist candidates in both local and national elections. They believed it their calling to attack the class, race and gender inequalities which pervaded this country at the time and worked towards an equal, inclusive unified American society. This is the distinct cultural and political milieu in which activists of that time endeavored to make a difference.

A frank and honest comparison between the original feminist movement which worked against cultural norms and the new conservative feminist movement which is leading strong, traditional minded American women away from secular norms shows some striking similarities.

Would the feminists of the 1920′s to 1940′s be considered feminists today? No, probably not. By today’s standards, a feminist is all but honor bound to blame men for all the problems women experience in today’s world. When radical feminists face off against a conservative woman, they do everything possible to strip her of even the appearance of a healthy intellect by declaring to her physical attractiveness or homemaker status to be a weakness. I recently came across a quote by Tylor Marsh, a devoted liberal feminist, in which she states: “I respect the rights of Sarah Palin and conservative women to make decisions that fit their lives and philosophy. Unfortunately, they do not respect mine or the millions of other women who stand up for women’s individual freedoms and the right to self-determination that equals any man.”

The women’s movement was born of a desire to participate as stakeholders in society through the right to vote. In just a matter of decades, what began as a quest for the electoral franchise evolved into what we now know as the feminist movement. Women went from seeking equality to demanding the right to blame. That is not a desire for equality. It is petulant demand to be coddled, to live without responsibility for one’s own life.

By contrast, Sarah Palin motivates us to foster the hope that we can have it all. Mock away if you wish, but living with the hope of improving our circumstances through our own efforts is far more inspiring than being taught to expect catastrophe and assessing blame to someone else.

In universities around the world, young women are indoctrinated to believe that it is impossible for a true feminist to be either religious or feminine. In order to be taken seriously, a woman cannot believe in a Loving and Just Creator. Faith is seen as regressive by the modern women’s liberation movement.

Whereas the liberal feminist movement is repelled by the Bible, the new feminine feminists take the wisdom of the ages, embrace it and leverage it for the good of their families, their communities and their Nation!

Click Photo ~ For Such a Time as This!!

The Bible implies that physical beauty is a metaphor for inner beauty because throughout the narrative, women are revered as much for their inherent goodness as they are for their physical attractiveness. No woman epitomizes both intrinsic and exterior beauty more than Queen Esther. Her exquisite beauty, grace and poise set her apart from all the other maidens in Persia. Queen Esther possessed inner beauty through courage, confidence, obedience, honesty, self-sacrifice, wisdom, and a devotion to God. She saved the Jewish people from near certain slaughter and through her courage, she became a true female heroine. This “Daughter of God” transformed from a terrified teenager into a beacon of hope, thereby becoming one of the greatest leaders of her time. Her enemies underestimated her. However, far from being a devilish mastermind Esther was actually a gracious woman. She was kind to her husband, even when he acted harshly. She was an astute observer of human nature which led her to understand how effective flattery would be on her enemy, Haman. She also studied life at court making her banquets the perfect backdrop for her plan.

The radical left has created a stereotypical female package deemed “eligible” to participate in public discourse. Rather than fixating on that external, shallow image, conservative feminists are completely comfortable wrapping themselves in everything feminine, balanced and moral. This is our jumping off point, the platform from which we spring forward to a future in which our capabilities and the content of our character earn us a seat at the table.

Danna Wolfson is currently an “Associate Faculty” at SMU and Collin College. Born in South Africa, Danna emigrated to the United States in 1983 after having lived in Tel Aviv for three years previously. Her professional travels have taken her around the globe including destinations such as Russia, Taiwan, Africa and all over North America. An experienced educator, Danna is also an accomplished journalist. She speaks English, Russian and Hebrew. Reubin is a regular contributor to Right Time Radio

_____________________________________________________

As we enter this important election year, our voices must unite in defense of preborn American citizens who cannot defend themselves.

Westin Hicks is a great writer and this site is well worth your time to visit and get great content to pass on to the readers on your own blog.

Just remember to attribute the writer and hyperlink back to Agenda Wise.

And this is a Republican…………

“In an Op-Ed published by(R) Rep. Drew Darby’s local San Angelo Standard-Times, Darby argued in favor of green energy subsidies in Texas. Darby’s HB 2961 would levy steep fees on electricity to pay for the installation of solar

The generation that wrote songs like Hey, Mr. Spaceman are now running the legislature. And the Senate is clearly the most “creative” department of our state government.

Yesterday those progressives went full force with their “creative” new and improved form of legislating and did a full end run around everything the elected State Board of Education has done for setting text book curriculum and dealing with the needs of public school students in Texas. How? By redistricting out or marginalizing people with whom they disagree.

It doesn’t get any more “creative” than that.

In essence they changed the voters in conservative districts. Now that is essentially what redistricting does – but in a representative republic the voters themselves are supposed to have a say in the process. And they had been calling their Republican senators for a couple of weeks asking them to vote for E118.

Questions:

Senator Kel Seliger

Why did Senator Kel Seliger reject the well-researched and constituent preferred E118 plan and not give it a hearing?

Hal: E118 (The O’Grady Plan which was approved and supported by conservative members of the SBOE) was NOT allowed to be heard…We are in deep trouble if floor amendments do not alter the targeting of conservatives on the SBOE.

Why was his obviously preferred plan E120 kept under wraps until 8:25 AM for an 8:30 AM hearing? Plan E118 had been available for a couple of weeks prior to the “creative” hearing.

The language was difficult to understand. Why were the analyses of E120 not made available until after the hearing was finished?

Was there a closed door meeting somewhere that we should know about? Maybe. Otherwise how did liberal Thomas Ratliff come out and testify for the map that was revealed mere minutes before?

“There was no 120 until this morning,” said Ken Mercer in a telephone interview Wednesday evening. He had been calling every senator over the past two weeks asking them to vote for E118. “How can you have a public hearing on a map that has just come out and that nobody has seen yet?” He said that Senator Dan Patrick, leader of the Tea Party Caucus, stood up and protested the measure.

“The bottom line,” said Mercer, “Is that this map may be on the senate floor – are you ready for this – as early as Friday. That’s how bad it is. I told a reporter ‘This is like saying conservatives need not apply’.”

And it gets worse.

Even if you’re a Hispanic like Charlie Garza, if you are conservative you’re out.

Some insights from eye-witness Hal:

Newly elected strong conservative Charlie Garza will have a very hard time getting re-elected as Midland Co. and Ector Co. were switched on the map (Midland was taken from Garza D-1 and given to Craig D-15 and vice-versa). Midland was a conservative stronghold for District 1 and helped elect a conservative Hispanic to the SBOE… however RINO Bob Craig had a viable conservative contender to run against him in 2012… by switching the two counties Bob Craig’s contender will not be able to run against him due to boundary conflicts.

Now it will be up to floor amendments to try and save conservatives on the SBOE.

Dear Democrat-progressive activist Senators, why can’t you cooperate? Does the end really justify the means? If you think so, as you apparently do, then what are you doing crafting laws?

The Texas Senate does not seem to understand that we can not keep spending at these levels and expect to be okay when it is not just Raining (Rainy Day Fund) but it is a tsunami and we have no money in the bank.

Let me add a comment left after I first posted this article. Hat Tip to my dear friend Bryan Waits

“I would say they spend like drunken sailors but that would be an insult to drunken sailors because the sailors spend their own money!” Ronald Reagan in a speech speaking of Congress

Here is a quick comparison of the current budget, known as the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the House’s engrossed version of the budget, and the Senate’s budget as reported from committee. Provided by James Quintero with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.Note: figures have been rounded where appropriate.

House vs. GAA

The House’s budget proposal would reduce All Funds appropriations by $17.8 B from their funding levels in the 2010-11 GAA;

The House’s budget proposal would reduce General Revenue (GR) appropriations by $3.1 B from their funding levels in the 2010-11 GAA;

As compared to the 2010-11 GAA, the House’s budget proposal would increase All Funds appropriations to two articles: Public Safety and Criminal Justice (+$198 M), and Business and Economic Development (+$59.1 M). Combined, the amounts appropriated in these two articles totals $257 M; and

As compared to the 2010-11 GAA, the Senate’s proposed budget would increase All Funds appropriations to four articles: General Government (+$73.6 M), Agencies of Education (+$833 M), Public Safety and Criminal Justice (+$936 M), and Business and Economic Development (+$3.4 B). Combined, the amounts appropriated in these four articles totals $5.2 B; and

As compared to the 2010-11 GAA, the Senate’s budget proposal would decrease All Funds appropriations to six articles: Health and Human Services (–$1.9 B), The Judiciary (–$39 M), Natural Resources (–$210), Regulatory (–$345 M), General Provisions (–$2.9 B), and The Legislature (–$13 M).

House vs. Senate

The Senate’s proposed budget appropriates $12 B more in All Funds as compared to the House’s proposed budget;

The Senate’s proposed budget appropriates $3.1 B more in GR as compared to the House’s proposed budget;

The House’s proposed budget appropriates $367 M more in General Revenue-Dedicated Funds as compared to the Senate’s proposed budget;

The Senate’s proposed budget appropriates $2.9 B more in Federal Funds as compared to the House’s proposed budget;

The Senate’s proposed budget appropriates $6.3 B in Other Funds as compared to the House’s proposed budget;

As compared to the House’s budget proposal, the Senate’s proposed budget would increase All Funds appropriations to seven articles: General Government (+$516 M), Health and Human Services (+$3.6 B), Agencies of Education (+$6.5 B), Public Safety and Criminal Justice (+$738 M), Natural Resources (+$138 M), Business and Economic Development (+$3.3 B), and The Legislature (+$28 M); and

As compared to the House’s budget proposal, the Senate’s proposed budget would decrease All Funds appropriations to three articles: The Judiciary (–$8 M), Regulatory (–$154 M), and General Provisions (–$2.8 B).

Interesting observation, these elected officials in Austin seem to not understand that Americans and in particularly, Texans are waking up and they do not like what they see, from the budget to redistricting to immigration. Politicians seem to think it is still the “Good ole’ Boy system” in Texas. I have a feeling they are going to be surprised that the Tea Party movement is onto their back room dealings and do not care what letter is beside their name. Just as my new Twitter friend Spencer states on his description …..

“In March 1996, an Islamic terrorist group kidnapped seven French Trappist monks from their remote monastery in Tibhirine, Algeria. They were held for two months, then beheaded.

At the heart of this atrocity is a tale of heroic faith, steadfastness and love, captured in the sublime film “Of Gods and Men.” It is perhaps the best movie on Christian commitment ever made.”

I always find it fascinating to read and listen to commentaries from people I respect on films and issues I am interested in. “Of Gods and Men” is no different. I think you will find Fr. Barron’s commentary very poignant and interesting just like Rich Lowry’s. Especially in a time when in America we are having to face the facts about the Islamic Radical infiltration into our own communities.

Latest Tweets

Follow Us

Search

By Danna Wolfson
Feminism is largely viewed as a liberal movement. The Mainstream Media has done an admirable job of making the Left seem friendly to women and their desires while making the Right appear to be detrimental to women’s rights.
Of course, we conservatives know instinctively that this is far from the case. Provi